The replay is a must, as in Forge of Freedom. In my current pbem, I've had battles where I'm mystified who I fought (as is my opponent). It would be nice to know (even if it was just a text report with formation name etc) - i.e French merchant / Privateer 1 in sea zone x.

As the British player, it would be nice to know how much damage port guns did, especially if you won.

If I besiege and capture an enemy city, and stay put for a while (most likely a capitol), and the enemy then enters the province, I am still the attacker. This seems wrong to me, after all by now I am in control of the city, and the enemy is trying to force me away, so the enemy should be the attacker.

Instead of merely two elevations (well maybe 3 if you consider swamps as 'lowlands', or even 'four' if you consider the impassable mountains as the fourth) how about three or four?

In the old Civ War game "Civil War Generals II" hills could be tiered. One big hill might have sprawled out over 20 or 30 hexes! The tippy-top of the hill might have been a string of only 4 or 5 hexes toward the center, with the next string being one level lower, though with some levels perhaps being wider or more narrow.

If you guys are curious what I mean here, have a look back at that old game, which is now freeware and see what I'm referring to. I think this would go a long way to making the detailed battle maps more realistic if the random algorithm could be harnessed to generate those kinda maps like they had for CWGII.

Second one: once a random map gets generated for a province, have it be a possibility for subsequent battles in the same province.

In my game, I must have had 8 battles in Champagne and every single map has been different. Now admittedly, Champagne is a big place and therefore no two battles MIGHT have happened in the same place. But maybe in some provinces they WOULD be more likely to happen in the same place?

If there were any way to have the randomly generated maps become saved as temp files that would then have some semi-random chance to be the map for any subsequent detailed battles in that hex it would be cool. In fact, if there were a way for the player (or the AI) to have the opportunity to favor having a battle in the pre-fought map that might in itself be cool.

Third, this one is not so much a wish for you guys WCS, as I realize the sheer work that would be involved but, maybe for the fan community: Digitize the actual land areas of all provinces in the game (or at least the areas that are within 4 miles of 18th century roads and where battles could/might have happened) into hex maps. Maybe this results in 15 hex maps for Champagne, 10 for Ile de Paris, 5 for Le Havre, etc. Save these maps as files somehow in the game, and assign particularly strategic parameters to each (e.g., chokepoint, or port facility, or major town, or provincial capitol, or crossroads, or high-ground, or whatever) and link particular benefits to winning combats in any given strategic locale to the finite number of strategic locales you determine. Now the detailed battles seem less like random sandbox explorations of hypothetical tactical challenges and more like real, tactical battles fought out in a larger strategic context. If you are the attacker and you have initiative, maybe instead of attacking the port facility you attack the cross-roads. This allows you to block movement into and out of the province or to block supply, or to pillage supply from the enemy, or what have you. Or, maybe you prefer to go ahead and attack the port "map." If you win the battle early enough on Day 1, then maybe you get the chance to torch some ships, with an increasing chance that those ships can get away as Day 1 ebbs into Day 2.

Attack the urban center of a province that has high iron output, and cause its output to go down temporarily.

Not sure if it has been mentioned before, and too lazy atm to read through the entire thread. At the "provinces" screen, I would like more sorting options, mostly a "sort by # of courts in province" as keeping track of which provinces has what lvl of court becomes important and time consuming late in the game.

I want to see a formation "General Order" which was the common practice for defense of urban and forest areas. Line, square and column can only be used in open terrain with general order in any non-open terrain. General order does not square but also suffers no disadvantage from a charge or melee from any direction except directly behind where it should be 1/2 as effective. It can deploy skirmishers (representing advance parties outside the obstructing terrain) that can be reformed by fire or charge and it suffers no penalties to fire attacks. Morale and defense should be higher representing the difficulty of dislodging these troops from the difficult terrain especially urban settings. Artillery would also enter general order - a sort of unlimbered state firing as good as line. Units in square, line or column AUTOMATICALLY enter general order moving into non-open terrain (unless already disordered or routed in which case they remain so - although rally in an urban setting should be easier due to the propensity for troops to stop running and seek cover) and units leaving such hexes going to open terrain AUTOMATICALLY enter column.

Heavy Cav should not be allowed to enter screen formation.

Heavy cav was most effective in COLUMN NOT LINE. Heavy cav in line should be 1/2 as powerful in melee as in column.

Light cav was most effective in LINE NOT COLUMN so they should be 1/2 as good in column.

Heavy cav Whoops butt on light cav but light cav should be able to avoid any Heavy cav charge through front hexes by retreating one hex and possibly disordering.

Lancers in line tended to spread out in an extended line to make the lance weapon most effective so a big bonus should be given to lancers in line.

Where are the dragoons? We have Inf+rifles so why not Cav+carbines as a unit that would have a decent firepower up to 2 hexes away.

Lt Cavalry and dragoon should be able to deploy skirmishers which can prevent charges by other units (the unit simply retreats one hex and retains good order but loses the skirmish fromation) and increase defense.

Like to see a road column formation representation by not allowing units who move more than 50% of their potential along a road to change formation at the end of their move and they also incur significant penalties to combat.

Hey, don't be angry, I know a lot of this probably can't happen but this is a wish list LOL!

Can you find some other way to show protectorates? That dotted line is very distracting, especially when there are large numbers of small countries (Confederation of the Rhine, anyone?). Even something as simple as a replacement file like the font and map downloads would be most appreciated here.

Dunno if this has been raised here, but is there any chance the Diplomatic & Unit placement 'Overview' could be taken out for PBEM games.

Very roughly, and I'm sure there may be more but it seems a bit of a waste of time negotiating a "Secret" treaty if it then shows up on the Diplo 'Overview', 'Rumours' should be able to create the doubt etc.

Likewise with the Unit placements, bit of a bummer, as happened to me to slink armies around under cover of FoW only for all players to see not only roughly where it is but also what ie Army or Corps on the Overview.

Eliminate the battle sounds and music from the tutorials. No need to have those sounds when someone is being instructed in how to play the game-it only interferes with hearing whats going on-especially in with considering the high frequency voice of the narrator.

confusing me here ? we got zoom-able maps in Naval and Land HW battles, what is it you are wishing for ?

*

Interesting-I will have to look it over. What I'm looking for is a way to zoom in and out in the detailed battle.

Plus: After searching the rules, watching the detailed battle videos and opening the game to detailed (Bde level) battle I still do not see how a detailed battle map is zoomed. I did see a screen shot of a naval battle in the instructions that indicated it was zoom-able.

Perhaps I should amend my suggestion to making the battle zoom controls instructions more obvious.

The larger minors should have the ability to re-locate their capital if the original capital is lost. Thus, Bavaria and Denmark should have a second capital and Poland at least two. This would prevent the complete collapse, particularly of Poland, for the loss of a single province and require the attacker to do more to achieve their surrender.

1.) forge of freedom had an excellent feature of providing a percentage chance for leaders to appear in the game. it would be a great addition to crown of glory.

2.) enable the "diedin" column in the generals data file for retirement of generals. presumably this would reference a turn number as "turn-#_base0" does for appearance.

3a.) add columns "Event_Appear" and "Event_Retire" to appear/retire the general when a specific historical event occurs.

3b.) for the events file, add historical events for the first surrender of each major power, for use in #2 above. This is already happening behind the scenes anyway, as 300 experience points are awarded to the surrendering nation after their first surrender (and 50 for each subsequent surrender).

note that in combination these 3 changes could provide for quite a bit of flexability - for example, Napoleon is a 1 star general in 1796, is retired as a 1 star with the surrender of Austria and replaced with a 2 star; is retired as a 2 star with the historical event of his election as first consul and replaced with a 3 star; is retired as a 3 star with the historical event of his corronation as emperor and replaced with a 4 star.

I would like to see the timelines extended in the scenarios to include later officers. It seems only officers appearing within the default timeline of the scenario make appearances, for example, no Wellington in 1796 scenario, even if you play no time limit.

I should add that the deathdate command should only be implemented for those who died or retired of "natural causes", i.e. Dumouriez and Bernadotte defecting, Suvorov and Kutuzov dying of old age/illness. Lannes should NOT die in 1809 because that was a battle death and the game already has a mechanism to model battle deaths.

Diplomacy should have two more options (others might want even more ). Espesially in pbem.

-Guarantee independence, both major and minor nations. If I guarantee the independence of anyone and someone DoWs them, I should be allowed to DoW the agressor without any glory penalty. If I chose not to DoW the agressor, then I should get a glory penalty. -The ability to type a text into a treaty. If I sent someone a deal, I might want to add a text telling why I want this deal, or what I will do if this does not go through etc.

I would like to see the timelines extended in the scenarios to include later officers. It seems only officers appearing within the default timeline of the scenario make appearances, for example, no Wellington in 1796 scenario, even if you play no time limit.

So, mod the scanario you wish and make it so. I'd like to see what you come up with.

I would like to see the timelines extended in the scenarios to include later officers. It seems only officers appearing within the default timeline of the scenario make appearances, for example, no Wellington in 1796 scenario, even if you play no time limit.

It's a good idea to add some big-name generals to the scenarios that are missing them. We can't do all of the missing ones because if there are too many generals in the game it throws off the balance in battles. But you (plural) are right that Wellington should be in 1796, etc. If you guys could put together a list of who should be added where we can do our own "mod," and eventually put it into a patch.

As for the deathdate business, that's also a good idea, but would require some coding and therefore will have to wait. (The FOF generals file actually has a column for this already, but the code hasn't been added there, either, mainly because hardly any generals died before the Nov. 1861 scenario.)